Unless Mozilla has entered into business of organizing gay weddings while I wasn't looking - no, it's not reasonable at all. No more than gun owner should be concerned if his CEO donated to a known anti-gun politician, or a medical marijuana user should be concerned if his business partner donated to a politician that opposes drug legalization. There was nothing in Eich's actions that would concern his employees and business partners in their capacity as employees and business partners. As far as it is known, he didn't say he would fire gay people (and he didn't do that either), he didn't say he would deny them benefits if affording such benefits were recognized by the law, he didn't refuse to enter any deals because opposing side was represented by gay person - in short, he did absolutely nothing of the sort that may raise such reasonable suspicion. The only base for that is "he's for prop 8, so he must be despicable person, so he's evil, so we have reasonable suspicion he would hate us because that's what evil people do". It's not an argument, it's a series of stretches, one worse than the other.

What if his belief was the blacks should not be allowed to get married? would you have the same opinion on this then? Would there even be a discussion?

An environment where people are allowed to debate over even the most atrocious ideas is much more productive and inline with what the ideal democracy is.

I would have loved if Mozilla had an internal, open, philosophically rigorous, discussion that employees would participate in. Brendan would be forced to change his mind, not by force, but by reasoning.

Unfortunately, this is just my rosy way of thinking.

I think the vote should be taken after influence has been applied, because I think part of what defines a person is their influence (it is perhaps the most important part, especially in questions of politics like this one).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califo...

He has refused to speak about his views, so Mozilla employees and partners could reasonably fear that he might take other actions that harm gay people. Those need not be explicit and declared ones. Anybody who has been on the receiving end of bias knows that out-and-out bigots are rare these days; it's the subtle stuff that is more often the problem.

That's reasonable enough.

On the other hand, it's selective at best to limit the applied focus to his donations.

He's spent a lot of time/effort working at and building up Mozilla, a Mozilla that has an equitable/inclusive code of treatment, a Mozilla where by several LGBT accounts his co-workers felt interaction with him was free of aggression, a Mozilla where where co-workers felt free to defend or reject his appointment. And he invited everyone to judge him by those standards had he kept on.

But Eich promising to only work against gay people's civil rights in his off hours wouldn't strike me as enough if I were a Mozilla employee. It's not the kind of promise I'd fully trust.

Really, I feel for Eich. If I had to guess, he's somebody who grew up around a lot of religiously-driven intolerance of gay people. And, like many smart people, he used his smarts to compartmentalize one set of views from another. It must be heartbreaking to be forced to deal with those inconsistencies in the eye of the national media, and to handle it poorly enough that he ended up quitting something he started and believes in. I wish he had sorted this out years ago, but I hope this serves as an opportunity for him to do so soon.

Do you actually have a source of him saying that? Or are you basing it solely on his political donation?

If that's the case, you're engaging in nothing more than pointless conjecture.

> Even the bible says, "You will know them by their fruits,"

With a little more context: http://bible.com/59/mat.7.15-20.esv

For those not used to reading the Bible. "Them" in this case is referring to people who claim to be followers of Christ. A subset of those people are labelled as "false prophets", people with positions of influence in a "church" (a teacher, pastor, or other leader). The "you will know them by their fruits" bit is a way for the genuine follower of Christ to identify a "false prophet" when deciding whether or not the leader is following Christ. Namely, that there should be evidence in their lives of that following.

If you want to go way out on a limb (heh, puns) and you support same-sex marriage, you could use this text as consolation that if Brendan Eich is a "tree that bears bad fruit", he'll be going to hell.

I'm disinclined to believe that there are many here who want to really get into what the Bible says about homosexuality, but if so, I'm game.

Honestly, I don't think I'm above anybody in that sense. We all believe stupid shit, and sometimes that makes us do bad things. As I said, my problem isn't with Eich's action; a lot of people were on the wrong side of that issue. But until he has recognized that stripping a civil right from gay people was harmful and wrong, and until he says that he won't be trying to treat gay people as second-class citizens, then I think it's reasonable to ask whether he should have a position of power over the people he's helped oppress.

If I were to apply that chapter to this situation, I think it would more be about Eich, a sinner like the rest of us, not using a court to punish people he things have transgressed his god's law.

I'd also note that story ends with, "Go and sin no more." Suggesting to me that forgiveness is bound up with a recognition of error and an attempt to reform. Which is something Eich hasn't yet done.

And indeed, I think that was Eich's way out of this. He could have declared, like a lot of Christians have, that hating on gay people is a sin, one he wanted no further part of. If he had actually apologized for injuring gay people, I think a lot of people could have, like the Pharisees, recognized that they too had made mistakes.

The bible also says "Turn the other cheek", meaning that you should give people a second chance, and to treat them kindly despite their actions.

The bible has a ton of stuff in it, for example during times of slavery was used as a basis for both pro- and anti- slavery arguments. Drawing on a slogan from the bible to use its name as an authority is rather pointless - as a collection of aphorisms, there's one for every occasion.

Given that Eich has worked against the civil rights of gay people without explanation or apology

Eich expressed sorrow at the pain he caused in an article on his blog. He also stated in several different channels that the culture at Mozilla was going to remain diverse and inclusive. That's something of an explanation.

You seem determined to crucify a person based on one past bad action rather than the larger, more nuanced picture.

Yes, people have asked him nicely and politely to resign rather than threatening or berating him.

I think it's sort of telling the way ideas like "freedom of speech" or "turn the other cheek" get abused in this particular instance. "Freedom of speech" says the state won't abuse someone for expressing their views. It doesn't mean people can't judge each other for their view - otherwise, we couldn't vote for the politicians of our choice. "Turn the other cheek" means be ready to forgive. But it doesn't say actions should have no consequences. Moreover, "I'm sorry sorry for the pain" is the standard "non-apology apology". A "I wish I hadn't done that and I won't do it again" statement would have been a prelude to a request for forgiveness, in which circumstance your plea would make sense - unlike now.

Basically I'm saying: it's fine if you judge the man on his merits. It's not fine if you turn who he is into a strawman, and then treat him as if he is that strawman.

Re: the bible stuff, I'm just saying that just pulling a slogan from the bible is pointless, because you can always find a counter from the same. Also, 'forgiveness' does mean no consequences (or significantly reduced consequences). That's the whole point of forgiveness. If you make someone suffer consequences, you haven't actually forgiven them. These are not orthogonal concepts.

- He donated to Prop 8.

- He donated to Pat Buchanan, who has largely made his bones on hating anybody who isn't WASPy[1].

- He donated $750 to Thomas McClintock[2], another politician who makes a show of being anti-gay. Eich was living in Santa Clara--not in McClintock's district.

- He donated $500 to Linda Smith[2], she of the "morally unfit inclination" opinion of gay people. She was running in Washington, while he lived in California.

The reason I list these is to dispel the notion that it's "one event". He has a pattern of going out of his way (out-of-district donations) to give money to causes and politicians who are particularly strident in their anti-gay stances (and even Ron Paul, who he also gave money to, is notably anti-gay-marriage and remains static in that despite having vacillated on marriage privatization).

This is, by my lights, who he wants to be known to be. Should that not be considered in the light of Mozilla's self-described values? (I do not believe there exists a coherent, moral worldview where it's not important to prioritize the inclusion of the less privileged ahead of the comfort of the privileged. I say this while thinking of multiple communities of which I am a part that sometimes make me uncomfortable in the effort to make those less privileged feel respected and safe. The actions that result in this piss me off sometimes, but I am an adult and I recognize that it's for the net benefit of everybody.)

[1] - http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/02/controvers...

[2] - OpenSecrets donor query - it requires a captcha, though, so I've omitted the link.

You lay up some facts [I've not checked but don't doubt especially] but don't look at his actions in his employment - were there objections from staff that he discriminated against them. Did he force modification of Mozilla's codes to deny rights based on specific sexual behaviours of the employees in an unreasonable way?

Mozilla's values are, according to their blog:

>We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

Except that's no longer true is it. "Mozilla welcome contribution from anyone who believes that homosexual behaviour is right and that homosexual's should be granted civil unions by the state those unions to be called marriage". Not so pithy I guess.

Unless they tried to refuse his resignation then this move strikes out the "culture" and "religious views" parts of that quoted statement.

He was fine as a CTO because of his brilliant technical mind. His actions, however, make him unfit to lead an organization as diverse as Mozilla.

you just cannot compare those to gay rights. Neither of those perpetuate inequality or hate. In fact they are in support of individuals rights.

being against gay marriage is wanting to strip people of their rights and promote inequality. It is like saying only white people can get married, and if that was the case how would you feel about it then?

It's his helping to strip a civil right from gay people. It is reasonable for Mozilla's gay employees and partners to fear that he hasn't entirely stopped trying to treat gay people as second-class citizens.

I also have never stated that all we need to know is one action of six years ago, and have several times stated the opposite.

Personally, I'm not trying to crucify anybody. As I wrote in a number of places, including the very post you reply to, I don't think the donation should necessarily have been a problem. We all make mistakes. But his handling of this has been terrible.